* set processor command
@ 2002-10-29 2:00 Romain Berrendonner
2002-10-30 6:09 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Romain Berrendonner @ 2002-10-29 2:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
Hi folks,
I did a small comparison between gdb 5.0, 5.1 and gdb 5.2.1 (configured as
--target=powerpc-unknown-elf, solaris hosted) regarding the 'set processor'
command. The output is:
gdb 5.0:
--------
GDB knows about the following PowerPC and RS6000 variants:
ppc-uisa PowerPC UISA - a PPC processor as viewed by user-level code
rs6000 IBM RS6000 ("POWER") architecture, user-level view
403 IBM PowerPC 403
403GC IBM PowerPC 403GC
505 Motorola PowerPC 505
860 Motorola PowerPC 860 or 850
601 Motorola PowerPC 601
602 Motorola PowerPC 602
603 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 603 or 603e
604 Motorola PowerPC 604 or 604e
750 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 750 or 740
gdb 5.1:
--------
Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, powerpc:603, powerpc:EC603e, powerpc:604, powerpc:403, powerpc:601, powerpc:620, powerpc:630, powerpc:a35, powerpc:rs64ii, powerpc:rs64iii, powerpc:7400, powerpc:MPC8XX, auto.
gdb 5.2.1:
----------
Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, auto.
As you may see, the definition of the variants of powerpc vary considerably
from one version to another, and I would like to know what will be the
futur of this command: it looks like it is being deprecated, with less and
less variants supported. Is that true ? Or is it only that the existing code
is more generic ?
Thanks,
--
Romain
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: set processor command
2002-10-29 2:00 set processor command Romain Berrendonner
@ 2002-10-30 6:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-11-01 6:18 ` Elena Zannoni
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-10-30 6:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Romain Berrendonner; +Cc: gdb
> Hi folks,
>
> I did a small comparison between gdb 5.0, 5.1 and gdb 5.2.1 (configured as
> --target=powerpc-unknown-elf, solaris hosted) regarding the 'set processor'
> command. The output is:
>
> gdb 5.0:
> --------
> GDB knows about the following PowerPC and RS6000 variants:
> ppc-uisa PowerPC UISA - a PPC processor as viewed by user-level code
> rs6000 IBM RS6000 ("POWER") architecture, user-level view
> 403 IBM PowerPC 403
> 403GC IBM PowerPC 403GC
> 505 Motorola PowerPC 505
> 860 Motorola PowerPC 860 or 850
> 601 Motorola PowerPC 601
> 602 Motorola PowerPC 602
> 603 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 603 or 603e
> 604 Motorola PowerPC 604 or 604e
> 750 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 750 or 740
>
> gdb 5.1:
> --------
> Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, powerpc:603, powerpc:EC603e, powerpc:604, powerpc:403, powerpc:601, powerpc:620, powerpc:630, powerpc:a35, powerpc:rs64ii, powerpc:rs64iii, powerpc:7400, powerpc:MPC8XX, auto.
>
> gdb 5.2.1:
> ----------
> Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, auto.
>
> As you may see, the definition of the variants of powerpc vary considerably
> from one version to another, and I would like to know what will be the
> futur of this command: it looks like it is being deprecated, with less and
> less variants supported. Is that true ? Or is it only that the existing code
> is more generic ?
The code was rationalied (across a number of architectures) and also
made very generic. GDB ``supports'' any architecture/machine that is both:
- known by bfd
- known by gdb
It's included in the list. The names are obtained via a query to BFD.
A useful new feature (BFD and GDB) might be to also obtain a brief
description of the architecture/machine.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: set processor command
2002-10-30 6:09 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2002-11-01 6:18 ` Elena Zannoni
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Elena Zannoni @ 2002-11-01 6:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: Romain Berrendonner, gdb
Andrew Cagney writes:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I did a small comparison between gdb 5.0, 5.1 and gdb 5.2.1 (configured as
> > --target=powerpc-unknown-elf, solaris hosted) regarding the 'set processor'
> > command. The output is:
> >
> > gdb 5.0:
> > --------
> > GDB knows about the following PowerPC and RS6000 variants:
> > ppc-uisa PowerPC UISA - a PPC processor as viewed by user-level code
> > rs6000 IBM RS6000 ("POWER") architecture, user-level view
> > 403 IBM PowerPC 403
> > 403GC IBM PowerPC 403GC
> > 505 Motorola PowerPC 505
> > 860 Motorola PowerPC 860 or 850
> > 601 Motorola PowerPC 601
> > 602 Motorola PowerPC 602
> > 603 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 603 or 603e
> > 604 Motorola PowerPC 604 or 604e
> > 750 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 750 or 740
> >
> > gdb 5.1:
> > --------
> > Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, powerpc:603, powerpc:EC603e, powerpc:604, powerpc:403, powerpc:601, powerpc:620, powerpc:630, powerpc:a35, powerpc:rs64ii, powerpc:rs64iii, powerpc:7400, powerpc:MPC8XX, auto.
> >
> > gdb 5.2.1:
> > ----------
> > Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, auto.
> >
> > As you may see, the definition of the variants of powerpc vary considerably
> > from one version to another, and I would like to know what will be the
> > futur of this command: it looks like it is being deprecated, with less and
> > less variants supported. Is that true ? Or is it only that the existing code
> > is more generic ?
>
> The code was rationalied (across a number of architectures) and also
> made very generic. GDB ``supports'' any architecture/machine that is both:
>
> - known by bfd
> - known by gdb
>
> It's included in the list. The names are obtained via a query to BFD.
>
> A useful new feature (BFD and GDB) might be to also obtain a brief
> description of the architecture/machine.
Yes, but I think that the 5.2.1 version was only returning the rs6000
variants, which was a bug, and I think this was fixed when I did the
e500 support. The CVS head version of gdb returns the following now,
which is the correct set:
(gdb) set processor
Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, powerpc:common64, powerpc:603, powerpc:EC603e, powerpc:604, powerpc:403, powerpc:601, powerpc:620, powerpc:630, powerpc:a35, powerpc:rs64ii, powerpc:rs64iii, powerpc:7400, powerpc:e500, powerpc:MPC8XX, auto.
Elena
>
> Andrew
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-11-01 14:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-10-29 2:00 set processor command Romain Berrendonner
2002-10-30 6:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-11-01 6:18 ` Elena Zannoni
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox